Burberry holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. The Swatch still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, The Swatch carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Burberry's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Burberry, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
Most of the lead runs through growth, while profitability helps make the separation broader. The overall score gap is 12 points in favour of Burberry Group plc.
Both operate in: Luxury Goods
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. BRBY.L and UHR.SW share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Burberry and The Swatch each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup remains mixed because the stronger profile and the more supportive price setup do not sit on the same side.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
On the market side, The Swatch carries the stronger trend while Burberry's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the BRBY.L vs UHR.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BRBY.L and UHR.SW each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.